The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has generated quite a lot of opposition — or at least pockets of very loud opposition — especially in Europe. Among the major points of contention is the matter of investment protection and, specifically, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which gives foreign investors the option to bypass the domestic legal regimes of host governments and go straight to third party arbitration panels with claims concerning domestic policies, laws, regulations, or actions that have a discrimintory effect and adversely affect the value of their investments.

Like my colleague Simon Lester and I, Axel Berger of the German Development Institute is skeptical of the need and propriety of ISDS provisions. In today’s Cato Online Forum essay, Axel raises some important points and makes a good case for excluding ISDS provisions from the TTIP. Read it. Provide feedback. And register for Cato’s October 12 TTIP conference.